Subject: [babel] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-babel-00-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 13:22:16 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-babel-00-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-babel/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Charter in general is ok, but I think there are some pieces that
should be clarified.

1.  Are there specifics of "earlier reviews" or the "comments presented
at the BABEL BoF at IETF-95" that should be explicitly called out?  It
seems to me that generically mentioning what amounts to the need to
address "comments" is not needed or useful…again, unless there are
specific items that could be highlighted in the charter.

2. [nit] Maybe reorder the Work Items mentioning first the ones that are
required for advancing to PS, and later others.

3. Is the intent for the 3 main work items (base specification, security,
management) to advance together (to IESG review, etc.)?  If so, then it
would be nice to explicitly call it out (and reflect it in the
milestones).  If not, then it should be, because they are explicitly
mentioned as required for Babel to advance to PS.

4. How is "keep its wiki updated" a work item?  I agree that support
documentation can be held in a wiki — what I'm missing (as a work item)
is the intended deliverable.  If the intent is to document current
implementation experience, then let's explicitly say so (and not just
"expect" that it will happen), and set the proper publication
expectations.

5. What does "multicast aspects of Babel" mean?   The answer on the babel
list [*] indicates a wide variety of possibilities.  I would prefer it if
the specifics were included in the charter; or, given that multicast is
mentioned as a "secondary focus", that it be left off for re-chartering. 
 (s/PIM/the PIM WG).

6. Besides the specific call out to pim, are there other WGs with which
we might need babel to coordinate with?  Please call them out
specifically.

[*] "Some people appear to believe that Babel works fine with PIM-SM as
it stands.  Some other people appear to believe that it would be a good
thing for Babel to be extended to carry a set of metrics specifically for
multicast.  Yet other people would like to see Babel build multicast
routing tables with no help from PIM."  
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg00289.html)

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:16:38 -0400

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

I'm OK with deleting almost all of that verbiage.

> required for advancing to PS, and later others.

There seem be several incompatible requests for re-ordering the work
items. I don't think it makes that much difference.

> mentioned as a "secondary focus", that it be left off for re-chartering.

I defer to Alia on responding to the above three points.

> we might need babel to coordinate with?  Please call them out

HOMENET should be added.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:31:27 -0400

> > 1.  Are there specifics of "earlier reviews" or the "comments
> > presented at the BABEL BoF at IETF-95" that should be explicitly
> > called out?  It seems to me that generically mentioning what amounts
> > to the need to address "comments" is not needed or useful…again,
> > unless there are specific items that could be highlighted in the charter.
> 

Maybe we need to open an issue tracker and ask folks to put their comments there, so we can have a more specific charter item (?).

> > 2. [nit] Maybe reorder the Work Items mentioning first the ones that
> > are required for advancing to PS, and later others.
> 

Agreed.

> > management) to advance together (to IESG review, etc.)?  If so, then
> > it would be nice to explicitly call it out (and reflect it in the

I think it would be better to do this, but I think we should probably ask the WG... ?? 

> > documentation can be held in a wiki — what I'm missing (as a work
> > item) is the intended deliverable.  If the intent is to document
> > current implementation experience, then let's explicitly say so (and
> > not just "expect" that it will happen), and set the proper publication
> > expectations.

I'm not certain we should include this in the charter as a work item -- rather, maybe we should just mention the existence of the wiki as a reference point, and then regularly encourage folks on the list to keep the wiki updated... ??

> > list [*] indicates a wide variety of possibilities.  I would prefer it
> > if the specifics were included in the charter; or, given that
> > multicast is mentioned as a "secondary focus", that it be left off for re-
> chartering.
> >  (s/PIM/the PIM WG).

I think it's probably better to leave it off for a future recharter, when folks have a better change to look at these problems specifically and come up with more defined action plan.

:-)

Russ

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:17:27 +0000

On 6/2/16, 12:31 PM, "Russ White" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi!

...
>> items. I don't think it makes that much difference.

That's fine with me too.  The main point about this is the one below

>I think it would be better to do this, but I think we should probably ask

Right now the charter gates the publication, which works for me; security
and management I think are a MUST.

Thanks!

Alvaro.